Iran today sent a defiant signal to the international community by announcing plans to build 10 uranium enrichment plants days after it was condemned by the UN for concealing activities that are feared may be designed to produce an atomic bomb.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the 10 plants would be the same size as Iran’s biggest, Natanz, but this was dismissed by analysts.

Any thoughts on this, seems like another can of worms.

TeeHeeHee

29th Nov 2009, 11:13pm

This looks like a job for Batman and ... Gina

Tommy Kennedy

30th Nov 2009, 12:51am

And Murn and the gender bender

Rabbie

30th Nov 2009, 03:21am

Jist as well there wusnea any satellite survaillance when us lot whurr building whisky distilleries.

The Inglish press o' the day wis have been screaming, "Dire threat! Poxy Jocks create more missile silos."

Oor Wullie

30th Nov 2009, 08:22am

Any proliferation of nuclear weapons [ if that’s really what they have in mind] is regrettable but I think the Iranians might look at the history of western interference in their country and elsewhere in the middle east and take the view that the time for “ do as we say” has passed.

Tommy Kennedy

30th Nov 2009, 10:40am

QUOTE (Oor Wullie @ 30th Nov 2009, 08:03am)

Any proliferation of nuclear weapons [ if that’s really what they have in mind] is regrettable but I think the Iranians might look at the history of western interference in their country and elsewhere in the middle east and take the view that the time for “ do as we say” has passed.

Aye and those days - when at best they only had a few rifles - are really gone

auldbutcher

30th Nov 2009, 12:00pm

ach this is gonna hae the sabre rattlers among us drooolin, there will be calls fae this daffy bunch tae bring back blair nae doot

pumps100

30th Nov 2009, 12:15pm

What is the problem with Iran having nuclear technology?

The US administration has been after Iran for a number of years. Like Iraq the US has its long term objectives firmly set on Iran - I believe that there will be US inspired military action against Iran - its just a matter of time. Similar to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WOMD) which didn't exist the wheels are already in motion to set Iran up. The nuclear issue is akin to Iraq's WOMD.

Israel has a significant nuclear capability but that seems to be OK. India, China, and one that worries me more than any, is the endemically corrupt Pakistan - the reported holiday home of choice of Osama Binladin. Double standards indeed.

Regards

Ian

Tommy Kennedy

30th Nov 2009, 02:39pm

I'm sure ,Pumps, U.S. war hawks had plans to attack Iran, just as they had plans for years to attack Iraq - but I don't think they will now. No major Western nation will join them in an attack, not even U.K. now after the Iraq fiasco, nor even the East Euro nations U.S. bribed re- Iraq.

Then Iran has a much stronger army than Iraq had - well Southern Ireland had a stronger army than Iraq! U,S, would need a much larger military force 'Boots on Ground' than used for Iraq - U.S. losses would be heavy. Also Iranians, after what U.S. showed them what they had done to Iraq, are now behind their government military wise.

Oh, What frustration, the U.S. war hawks must feel !!! Is no one afraid of thier mighty military power?Why can't they do what Euro nations did in yesteryear?........ Because as said, they have more than just a few rifles now. .....and you can't have a 'secret war' as in yesteryear.

Tommy Kennedy

30th Nov 2009, 02:57pm

Rabbies post 4 reminds me of a very funny episode from a telly series, forgot what it was called. Irish farmers getting funds/aid from E.U. dependant on how many cattle/sheep they had.One farmer tells his mates how he's cheating, claiming for more than he had. They warn him that E.U. can't count his stock from the sky - spy sattelites. He goes to work making dozens of plywood cutouts of cows and spreads them around his field.

Other joke of that era: Northern Ireland farmers - during Mad Cow fiasco not getting E.U. aid as S/Irish were, said. 'We're British but our Cows are Irish'

murn

30th Nov 2009, 03:11pm

thanks jist won the bet

Why even bother opening a new thread when yee know Tommy will turn it into the same ole same ole.

TeeHeeHee

30th Nov 2009, 03:18pm

QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 30th Nov 2009, 03:38pm)

Rabbies post 4 reminds me of a very funny episode from a telly series ... He goes to work making dozens of plywood cutouts of cows

The Israelis once used that tactic with wooden tanks

Tommy Kennedy

30th Nov 2009, 04:53pm

I remember,THH, going along the Clyde - from Langbank to Gourock - on our bikes - we used to see rows of dummy AA guns. (Just to get Murn some more bets )

ashfield

30th Nov 2009, 07:05pm

The auld firm are using the same tactic to make us think they've got fitba players on the park

auldbutcher

30th Nov 2009, 07:18pm

ashfield . oops there that sniper agin tommy .

dugald

30th Nov 2009, 08:51pm

Why is it American people seem to accept Israel's WMD, but when other countries, such as Irak, Iran and North Korea, wish to obtain their own WMD, the Americans seem to get upset? This seems to me to be terribly unfair, but then who ever said the world was a fair place. I wish Iran lots of luck in their nuclear endeavours.

pumps100

30th Nov 2009, 11:04pm

QUOTE (dugald @ 30th Nov 2009, 08:32pm)

Why is it American people seem to accept Israel's WMD...

Suggestion: I think it better to say the 'United States administration' rather than tar the 'people' in general.

Regards

Ian

dugald

1st Dec 2009, 01:12am

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 30th Nov 2009, 11:45pm)

Suggestion: I think it better to say the 'United States administration' rather than tar the 'people' in general.

Regards

Ian

I agree with you there Ian. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Tommy Kennedy

1st Dec 2009, 01:21am

Yes, I think the American people are beginning to wise up some, and getting a bit war weary.

You have to remember they've had decades of massive propoganda; bombarded by Hollywood from fake Westerns to war films. Even the excellant C.S.I programs gets some propoganda in; and as said before the flag is constantly waved in their faces.

carmella

1st Dec 2009, 08:28am

I have thought about this subject quite often - doesn't keep me awake at night yet, but Dugald I agree with you.

Why all the fuss about some nations having (or wanting) to have Nuclear capability, when nothing is said about those who already do. Is there some great arrogance and superiority in thinking of the so-called great and, mightily powerful nations that it is less dangerous to world peace that they and they alone, should have Nukes, because it is deemed to be in their safe hands? - erm! I don't think so.

Tommy Kennedy

2nd Dec 2009, 05:00pm

What frustrates America is for the better part of the last century their mighty military made them supreme in the world; confident - excluding Russia/China - they could bully, defeat any nation, BUT now, one small weak nation possesing just one nuclear missile can stick a finger up to U.S.

It's not fair, thinks America, yesteryear you Euro nations could do what you like to/with weaker nations - we haven't had a fair bash at that!

Alex MacPhee

2nd Dec 2009, 06:04pm

QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 2nd Dec 2009, 04:41pm)

now, one small weak nation possesing just one nuclear missile can stick a finger up to U.S.

I imagine this also means that one small terrorist group possessing just one nuclear missile can stick a finger up to you and me.

Tommy Kennedy

2nd Dec 2009, 06:38pm

Yes, but unlikely 'One small terrorist group' would have the means, even if they had a N/missile to 'deliver it'.Danger is if fanatic nuters got hold o Pakistans N/M.

Point I was making while U.S. has 3,000 N/M just one from 'Another' devastating a U.S. city would ruin U.S. ecconomy. U.S. has more to fear than Iran/S.Korea.

Nuclear weapons aside - Wars with Middle Eas/Asian countries are immensely more expensive than yesteryear - all countries are awash with arms now - and 'Own losses' that were acceptable in yesteryear are not now accepteble.

King Over theWater

3rd Dec 2009, 11:00am

I don't expect too many will be too happy about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but should Iran choose to develop an effective defence, who can blame them?

But fwiw, I've never seen *any* evidence that Iran is gearing up to enrich Uranium.

Perhaps with good friends like China (buys a LOT of gas from Iran), and a strong control of the Straits of Hormuz, nukes aren't too high on the Iranian agenda?

K

Alex MacPhee

3rd Dec 2009, 11:58am

QUOTE (King Over theWater @ 3rd Dec 2009, 10:41am)

I don't expect too many will be too happy about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but should Iran choose to develop an effective defence, who can blame them?

How do you feel about mustard gas, sarin, that sort of thing?

QUOTE

But fwiw, I've never seen *any* evidence that Iran is gearing up to enrich Uranium.

I guess

"We told them (Western countries) to provide us with the 20 percent enriched fuel, but although they have a legal duty to give us the fuel they said, 'If you want us to give you the fuel, you should hand over your 3.5 percent fuel, and that if Iran does not hand over its low-enriched uranium, then there will be no deal, and then they passed a resolution against the country. This logic belongs to the Middle Ages and has been proven wrong over and over again. All nations rose up against this logic, and our nation will also produce the 20 percent enriched fuel and whatever it needs." [President Ahmadinejad of Iran, 2 December 2009]

is a bit of a giveaway.

Tommy Kennedy

3rd Dec 2009, 03:27pm

QUOTE (King Over theWater @ 3rd Dec 2009, 10:41am)

I don't expect too many will be too happy about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but should Iran choose to develop an effective defence, who can blame them?

But fwiw, I've never seen *any* evidence that Iran is gearing up to enrich Uranium.

Perhaps with good friends like China (buys a LOT of gas from Iran), and a strong control of the Straits of Hormuz, nukes aren't too high on the Iranian agenda?

K

Yes, and as I have said previously, when U.S. does get out of Middle East - and they will in time - you will see China, other Asian countries move in. Not with bombs and bullets and the aim of establishing 'Puppet governments' but with technological aid and consumer goods -make friends, get 2 rewards, their oil and a market for their goods.

pumps100

3rd Dec 2009, 03:52pm

I get a bit fed up with the way the media follows the propaganda line as dictated by the US government. The puppets in the British regime just nod their heads and follow the lead of the US administration.

For example the recent 'story' about "Sailors seized in Gulf by Iran'. It is rather like when the media discusses industrial relations, we have spin such as 'Union leaders demanded...(wage rises, better conditions') and "The employer offered...". One party the aggressor, and the other, nice and rather cuddly.

Lets get back to the story about the yacht crew detained by the Iranian coastguard. The yacht 'The Kingdom of Bahrain' was owned by the head of state of Bahrain (King Hamad). The crew aka known as sailors (to give it a military feel) were to sail the boat down to Dubai to take part in a race. They had technical problems on route - the rudder broke - there was no wind - and they drifted into Iranian waters. The Iranian coastguard came along and 'seized' them (aka rescued).

In the Gulf all the countries bordering the sea have from time to time little squabbles and there are often disputes about territorial jurisdiction and who owns what. The waters in the Gulf are very shallow. Disputes are usually about sandbanks (aka small islands) and who they belong to. Bahrain and Qatar came to blows a few years ago over the Hawar Islands - both claimed sovereignty. The UAE actually create new islands (man-made and usually mortgaged) so I can hope readers can appreciate that territorial sovereignty can be quite a big issue between neighbours. I would estimate that there are practically daily instances when ships and leisure yachts, are detained, or warned to move out of particular waters. It is not a big deal.

But what do we get - a full media onslaught against the heinous Iranians. The TV showing the parents weeping on their doorstep because young Charlie and his chums are being held by Iran and the subsequent 'joy' of their release. What a total lot of rubbish and the BBC should be ashamed of their Daily Mail type coverage of a sham story.

The Nuclear issue is just part and parcel regarding anti-Iranian propaganda.

Regards

Ian

Tommy Kennedy

3rd Dec 2009, 04:45pm

You've put things into perspective there Ian.

The 'internet intecepeters' will be after you - advise you not to make any plans to visit U.S

carmella

3rd Dec 2009, 05:08pm

QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 3rd Dec 2009, 04:26pm)

You've put things into perspective there Ian.

The 'internet intecepeters' will be after you - advise you not to make any plans to visit U.S

Alex MacPhee

3rd Dec 2009, 07:05pm

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 3rd Dec 2009, 03:33pm)

The Iranian coastguard came along and 'seized' them (aka rescued).

If they weren't "seized", but instead "rescued", why were the crew being held for investigation of "evil intentions" under threat of "serious measures"?

In what way it this an example of "the media following the propaganda line as dictated by the US government"?

carmella

3rd Dec 2009, 07:32pm

I have to say that I believe the yachtsmen were seized and not rescued. I would very probably have believed this regardless of media propaganda, given where they had strayed to.

Thank goodness, however, that there was none of the attention paid to them in public as there was to the Navy crew of some time ago. I think lessons were learned after that incident, and also perhaps the Foreign Office did not want to keep this quiet for some time, so as not to ruffle publicly, the Iranian feathers.

At the end of the day, from all we can see no harm came to the men and, they are home safe.

Rabbie

3rd Dec 2009, 08:37pm

QUOTE (TeeHeeHee @ 29th Nov 2009, 10:54pm)

This looks like a job for Batman and ... Gina

No seen baith thum aroond fur a wee while.

Hus batman gave robin the hee ho an done a bunk wi Gina?

pumps100

3rd Dec 2009, 09:19pm

I will be in the Gulf next week (not the US) for a few days. I'm sure there will not be any difficulty.

With regard to Alex's comments he should appreciate that all the countries in the Gulf region take very seriously any breach of their territorial waters.

Regards

Ian

Tommy Kennedy

3rd Dec 2009, 09:29pm

QUOTE (Rabbie @ 3rd Dec 2009, 08:18pm)

No seen baith thum aroond fur a wee while.

Hus batman gave robin the hee ho an done a bunk wi Gina?

BOth busy with their other 'identity' on the board

Rabbie

3rd Dec 2009, 10:05pm

It's worth remembering that in the Staits of Hormuz locality, there is a wee problem with pirates nipping around trying to cause mayhem on the high seas. These foolhardy souls scoot aroond in specially adapted moturboats that Clarkson and Co wid be proud of. These outlaws hail from a cluster of wee islands near a bigger island, Jezirah al Qeshm, which is all Iranian territory.

Ah was doing a wee stint at RAFO Khasab, which is an Omani Airforce base right on the tip of Musandam peninsula, there were daily occurances with these guys trying it on crossing into terratorial waaters. We used to take jollys up the helis and take piccies of them and the bastages wid take shots, of another kind at us. Wee fuggers, hehe.

As you can see they whurr lousy shots and never got lucky, no wi me anywi. Boats must have been too bobbity in the waater.

These scallywags are indiscriminate and don't care who they target, and are perceived as threat to shipping lanes in that region. Unlucky, for them there is a large naval presence in these region, so they only come oot to play at night these days.

Iran has it's fair share of lawless factions but ah don't think any o' them will be getting there grubby mitts on mushroom makers any time soon.

Alex MacPhee

3rd Dec 2009, 10:24pm

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 3rd Dec 2009, 09:00pm)

With regard to Alex's comments he should appreciate that all the countries in the Gulf region take very seriously any breach of their territorial waters.

Sure ; are there any countries that don't?

But if you are going to argue that the western media are misrepresenting a "rescue" as a "seizure", you have to explain the awkward "evil intentions" and "serious consequences" in the context that you yourself have set. You can't eat your cake and have it.

dugald

3rd Dec 2009, 10:24pm

Alex, in your Reply #25 you ask King :

"How do you feel about mustard gas, sarin, that sort of thing?"

Further to this reply let me say, I'm not in any position to say how King might feel about "mustard gas, sarin", but I can say how I feel about Iran having them. In my Reply #16, I said:

"Why is it American people seem to accept Israel's WMD, but when other countries, such as Irak, Iran and North Korea, wish to obtain their own WMD, the Americans seem to get upset? ",

and all I'd change would be "American people" to 'United States administration', in accordance with Pumps' suggestion, and draw attention to "mustard gas, sarin" being included in my "WMD".

The so-called "rogue states" are as entitled, as any other nation, to possess weapons they feel is necessary to maintain a level of armaments on par with that of any would-be aggressor.

Alex MacPhee

3rd Dec 2009, 10:35pm

QUOTE (dugald @ 3rd Dec 2009, 10:05pm)

"Why is it American people seem to accept Israel's WMD, but when other countries, such as Irak, Iran and North Korea, wish to obtain their own WMD, the Americans seem to get upset? "

As far as I know, Israel is only suspected of having nuclear weapons, but has neither confirmed nor denied it. I should prefer to think not, but Israel is at least a stable democracy.

QUOTE

The so-called "rogue states" are as entitled, as any other nation, to possess weapons they feel is necessary to maintain a level of armaments on par with that of any would-be aggressor.

You'll have to do more than merely restate an assertion to persuade me that the likes of Libya and other states of doubtful stability are "entitled" to weapons of mass destruction. One might as well argue that you and I are "entitled" to have "dirty bombs" when out and about in case we meet terrorists on the transport system who have nasty things in their backpacks.

dugald

3rd Dec 2009, 10:46pm

I have just finished reading your Reply # 27 Ian, and I found it not only interesting, but also a readily understood indictment of the current inclination of the British and American media to seek fault with Iran.

From what I've read, I see no reason to view the Iranian rescue as nothing more than just that... a rescue! I would assume it is generally the policy of boats involved in rescue work to ask questions. I wonder if there is a difference between 'interrogating' and "questioning". Nah, they both mean the same... just so long as we don't introduce any water-boarding to one and not the other.

Ian, I am in full agreement with you in your statement :

"The Nuclear issue is just part and parcel regarding anti-Iranian propaganda.".

TeeHeeHee

3rd Dec 2009, 11:57pm

It doesn't take rocket science intelligence to work any of this nookuler (quote/unquote) warhead stuff out.We have already had generations of us living through, and being part off, the greatest threat to life on earth since the last asteroidal impact: The Eagle and the Bear faced off for decades on a war footing appropriately termed MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. We can heave a sigh today that both sides recognised that they were faced with a No Win scenario - even if it can be fairly argued that the player with the biggest bankroll outlasted his opponent.Having lived through that and watched Cool Hand Luke scoop the pot, there is another Luke who now who warrants my attention and that is wee Luke and his twin brother Corey and the other 11 of my direct descendants.It may be fairly assumed that each nation has the right to suitably arm herself in defence against real or supposed aggressors as it seems America's citizens have the right to ... even I can own any amount of weapons in this land where I live so long as I have them registered ( having successfully hoodwinked the police authority that I am sensible enough to be issued a licence; and over the border in Switzerland every adult male has the right to have a weapon at home - for the eventual defence of his home land) We all know of course how often the kakhi hits the fan when someone flips his wig: falls out with his wife or leaves his weapons unsecured and son/daughter decide that they too don't like Mondays .Now upscale this whole thing.India, Pakistan, China, Korea, possibly Israel and now Iran and next month Isle of Mann. Do we really want our grand children to grow as we did with the modern day equivalent of a Kruschev breathing down their necks and a prat such as an alchoholic, born again, rootin' tootin' Texan with his finger on the trigger out to prove to his daddy that people are lookin' up to him now; or a middle eastern prophet with the promise of all his earthly desires in the next world..The discussion here should not be about which desert tribes are entitled to WMDs but rather when are we going to get rid of all this crap once and for all. I once laid hands on one of these beasts and I felt no heartbeat. Just a missile. Like the stone in David's sling had also no heart beat.But my heart was beating, because I knew what I was touching.We've come a long way from Sodom.We have some of the Technology of the Gods; the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of KnowledgeNow we are saying that the desert people are entitled to this technology too.No They Are Not and God Knows That ! ... and you ALL know that too.

dugald

4th Dec 2009, 12:55am

Oh yes Alex, you're dead right in your Reply #38 when you say :

"As far as I know, Israel is only suspected of having nuclear weapons, but has neither confirmed nor denied it.".

Only a profound lack of Middle East experience could explain such a depth of na´vetÚ Alex, and I don't think for one minute you suffer such a lack. I much prefer to think you are having us on!

"... but Israel is at least a stable democracy"

A stable democracy? Good heavens man they've been fighting Arabs since May 14th 1948, and are still currently in the process of bestowing Aphardheit on the Palestinian Arabs. I believe you have been mislead into thinking the grossly one-sided military successes of the Israelis is indicative of a stable government; it isn't, it's indicative of their overwhelmingly superior military force and support of the world's most powerful military force, the USA.

I'm also not too sure Alex, about your use of " stable democracy". What's this? A government that doesn't change very often? Wow, take a look at how many governments Israel has had since 1948. Does it indicate the number of assassinations of government leaders? If so, I wouldn't be surprised there has been more government leaders murdered in Israel than in Iran. No Alex, I don't think I'd describe Israel as a stable democracy. I'll grant you one thing though, I'm sure the vast majority of people in the western world would share your view on this matter of " stable democracy"...for what it's worth.

dugald

4th Dec 2009, 01:00am

Oh yes Alex, you're dead right in your Reply #38 when you say :

"As far as I know, Israel is only suspected of having nuclear weapons, but has neither confirmed nor denied it.".

Only a profound lack of Middle East experience could explain such a depth of na´vetÚ Alex, and I don't think for one minute you suffer such a lack. I much prefer to think you are having us on!

"... but Israel is at least a stable democracy"

A stable democracy? Good heavens man they've been fighting Arabs since May 14th 1948, and are still currently in the process of bestowing Aphardheit on the Palestinian Arabs. I believe you have been mislead into thinking the grossly one-sided military successes of the Israelis is indicative of a stable democracy; it isn't, it's indicative of their overwhelmingly superior military force and support of the world's most powerful military force, the USA.

I'm also not too sure Alex, about your use of " stable democracy". What's this? A government that doesn't change very often? Wow, take a look at how many governments Israel has had since 1948. Does it indicate the number of assassinations of government leaders? If so, I wouldn't be surprised there has been more government leaders murdered in Israel than in Iran. No Alex, I don't think I'd describe Israel as a stable democracy. I'll grant you one thing though, I'm sure the vast majority of people in the western world would share your view on this matter of " stable democracy"...for what it's worth.

Alex MacPhee

4th Dec 2009, 01:06am

QUOTE (dugald @ 4th Dec 2009, 12:36am)

A stable democracy? Good heavens man they've been fighting Arabs since May 14th 1948,

Can you explain to me why you think this means that Israel does not have a stable democracy? Are there anti-government riots in the streets? Have elections been suspended? What makes it unstable, or undemocratic?

dugald

4th Dec 2009, 01:12am

There was I Thh, all set to write to you and praise you for a very enjoyable read... than I read:

'Now we are saying that the desert people are entitled to this technology too. No They Are Not and God Knows That !"

I don't know how you know that God knows the desert people are not entitled to this [nuclear] technology...hmmmm Thh!

Well, you might just be right with your "... and you ALL know that too. ", if we assume you mean that the vast majority of western people (I'm assuming too, you are referring only to western people) cannot imagine a world where the desert people have a weapons strength strong enough to maintain there freedom from evils such as for example, Aphardheit. It's much the same idea as mentioned in the closing sentence of my Reply #41 addressed to Alex.

dugald

4th Dec 2009, 01:29am

stable government

QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 4th Dec 2009, 01:47am)

Can you explain to me why you think this means that Israel does not have a stable democracy? Are there anti-government riots in the streets? Have elections been suspended? What makes it unstable, or undemocratic?

I think what we require first fo all, is a definition of what is meant by a "stable democracy". Since you introduced the subject of "stable democracy" Alex, I think you should define it.

An aside:I made a change in the wording of my Reply #41:

I changed "stabilty of the government" to "stable government".

This was simply a spelling correction and in no way changes the sense of my intended meaning.I didn't know there was no word "stability"!

Alex MacPhee

4th Dec 2009, 01:39am

QUOTE (dugald @ 4th Dec 2009, 01:10am)

I think what we require first fo all, is a definition of what is meant by a "stable democracy". Since you introduced the subject of "stable democracy" Alex, I think you should define it.

You appeared to be saying that Israel could not be a stable democracy because it was in conflict with its neighbours. I am trying to find out what you mean, and why conflict with neighbours should have anything to do with it.

Tommy Kennedy

4th Dec 2009, 01:53am

The world never knew how close nuclear war came in the post war years or how the U.S could start a nuclear war from U.K bases on their 'own decision'.

In the post war years the Labour government allowed U.S.A.F bases here on the condition they were 'Joint commanded' so you had eg: R.A.F/U.S.A.F Lakenheath (Tho that changed later when U.S. demanded and got 'sole bases').It was a bit of a con tho - the first thing I noticed when I was posted to Lakenheath, after trade training was that there wasn't a single R.A.F. plane on the base; other than the R.A.Fs C.O's ,'Group Captain Huxum's, ''Tiger Moth' that he used for pleasure flights. THe U.S was in command of the base and we all knew it!

Lakenheath was a Nuclear base. The Daily Express exposed it as such but the government denied it - yet the barmaids in the local village pub knew it was, as we all did on the base. First thing you were told on being posted there was that you 'Had signed the secrets act & reminded of the penalties if you disclosed anything going on at the base'

Next the 6 of us who had been posted there from radio op training had to under go a futher 6 weeks of U.S.training by G.Is. The first was what they called 'English understanding' - could the G.Is understand us. Immediately 4 were rejected and posted away - cockney/northen, Geordie accents. Me, being brought up posh like was ok We were tested for 'Stress' - found out the reason for this: could you handle half a dozen superfortresses at once? - and this became necessary when the Korean conflict started.

We are actualy told the fortresses would be carrying atom bombs.. Every 20 mins , night & day,6 fortresses would take off, each one armed with an atom bomb for various Russian targets.

The radar techincians and A.T.C commander would closely watch the screens. At a given moment we would be given a code to broadcast; none of us understood the code, but there would be a loud silence, for seconds that seemed to turn into hours for the fortress to reply - no reply meant they were going ahead. You could actualy hear sighs in the control room when they did reply.

When the Korean war started U.S. flew over so many fortreses that there were not enough room had they all been on the ground at once. The runways were quickly extended.We were then all on 12 hour shifts/ 8 hours off. All leave cancelled.

Tommy Kennedy

4th Dec 2009, 01:56am

Israel a democracy? Israel is and always has been a 'Religous State' just as much as some Muslim States are.

Rabbie

4th Dec 2009, 03:55am

Short version:

Insurgancy has been defeated before, and within a Sovereign state, without much fuss and publicity, with the use of a few "freinds."

A Private War.

Here is the story, it's long, to grab a beer or your favourite tipple.

Long version:

In the 1960s, a select band of seconded General Duties officers flew for the Sultan's Air Force, getting in the kind of adventurous flying fast becoming legendary in the RAF. Later, in the 1970s, with active service in the RAF hard to come by, further successive batches of seconded RAF officers found some action with ‘SOAF’ (RAFO). In a particularly nasty counter-insurgency war, working with a RAFO acting as a small army-support air arm, RAF (and ex-RAF) fighter pilots, tactical transport and helicopter pilots – as well as some officers from ground branches – took a vital part in what became in effect the only victory in history over a Communist insurrection in its own territory in a sovereign state. Today, the RAF connection continues, albeit considerably reduced in influence by the natural advance or the national Omanization policy. Opportunities for Loan Service with RAFO still exist – for the chosen few!

On 1 March 1959, the Royal Air Force of Oman (until 1990 the Sultan of Oman's Air Force) became operational at Bayt al-Falaj, near Muscat, equipped with 3 Piston Provost and 2 Single Pioneer aeroplanes, manned by 7 GD pilots seconded from the RAF and maintained by Airwork Ltd., a commercial company under contract.

Since then, RAFO has grown to become an independent air force of over 50 modern combat aircraft and 3,500 personnel operating 5 key airfields and more than 50 rural airstrips – an air force which combines an efficient integrated air defence system with domestic air services supporting civil development.

Like all military developments, RAFO has grown to meet rising challenges to national security and peaceful development. Militarily, its history is most clearly seen as the forced growth of a flexible air power response to a proliferating cumulative threat. The threat has 3 overlapping growth stages. The first, from 1965, was the 10 year rural insurgency in Dhofar.

Then, once the war was won, there persisted the danger of resurgency and its escalation into a major regional conflict. The late 1970s and 1980s were the era or Soviet proxy influence and the threat persisted of a conventional invasion from the south by the Peoples Democratic Republic (PDR) of Yemen .

Finally, since about 1980, geopolitical antagonisms sharpened in the context of the worldwide dependence on the Gulf oil flow, the pressure from regional tensions and the various forms of power projection by both superpowers into the SW Asian region. Hence the strategic position of Oman placed global responsibilities on the Sultan's Government and his Air Force.

Oman today needs a compact and hard-hitting air force to guarantee Omani airspace, to deter aggression and to support regional stability. This is achieved by wielding a credible capability to intercept intruder aircraft, counter armoured incursion, give warning of dangerous incidents, discourage escalation of impending crisis and act as a trip-wire air deterrent force.

Each stage in this multiple, cumulative threat has been met over the period by a military response within which there have been corresponding increases and adjustments to the equipment, deployment and configuration of RAFO.

The war in Dhofar grew in 3 years from a tribal revolt into a major communist rural insurgency (PFLO) backed by the USSR and the Peoples Republic of China. The early plan to suppress the revolt gave way to a policy of containment. With the accession of HM Sultan Qaboos, and the direction or resources towards making the country safe for civil development, the Government was enabled to seize the initiative and go on the offensive.

The RAFO role was crucial to the success of the ground campaign. Only RAFO could in the last resort aid the survival of the Sultan's Armed Forces (SAF) infantry on the Jebel. RAFO engaged first in tactical support of SAF operations. Later, in line with national policy, RAFO played an equally crucial part in the widening aims of modernization and the dramatic material improvement of national life generally.

RAFO’s scope and configuration were increased to help achieve this central aim. Jet fighters were a vital step forward in operational capability. Much of the significant equipment added to the SOAF inventory in 1970-2 - notably transport aircraft – emphasized the civil role as well as the military: by protecting the Dhofari people against the guerillas and also by improving their lives by better communications and welfare projects. The addition of 3 Caribou and 8 Skyvan aircraft, with their STOL capability, emphasized civil and military transport and supply using short desert airstrips. The new AB 205 Iroquois and 206 Jetranger helicopters, initially 8 in all, also undertook rapid reinforcement, evacuation and airlift of personnel, supplies and equipment for small troop formations in inaccessible terrain, as well as the succour of stricken village settlements and isolated tribespeople caught between the 2 sides in the struggle.

Increased commitments in turn increased force levels, which again increased the RAFO workload. Therefore RAFO’s capability was further enhanced. The 6-fold SAF military increase in Dhofar within 3 years (1971-4) demanded north-south air mobility. RAFO received 5 Vickers Viscount airliners. The tactical support role was increased and complicated by the dual civil-military role British Army Training Teams (SAS) and the arrival or the 1,500 strong Imperial Iranian Battle Group. The Helicopter Squadron doubled. More pilots were engaged on secondment and contract. Selected Omani aircrew were trained as winchmen and airloadmasters, and a few began flying training.

Detail from the Flag of Oman Ultimately, changes in command put RAFO on a firmer basis and on course for the future. As a result an integrated air defence system was planned, and the whole organisation of command, control and communications began re-structuring. Hastily born in conflict, SOAF was rapidly becoming of age.

At each successive phase in the campaign, RAFO mastery of the air was crucial. Despite the PFLO acquisition of SAM 7 missiles, which exacted their toll, RAFO held air superiority. Moreover, from perilous re-supply of forward frontier garrisons, such as Sarfait, to helicopter borne re-inforcement and Strikemaster ground attack at critical pitched battles such as Mirbat, the RAFO tactical contribution proved decisive. Soon, by a courageous decision by HM the Sultan, RAFO would also provide the strategic key to victory.

This took the form of a 5-week offensive across the Yemen border by newly acquired Hawker Hunter fighter-bombers against supply routes and gun positions. The more RAFO strike aircraft exposed Yemeni vulnerability, the less was Yemeni support for the PFLO. Omani diplomatic moves assured the support of Arab neighbours. SAF operations followed up and the PFLO armed struggle lost all coherence. In December 1975, the Sultan was able to declare the southern region ‘safe for civil development.’

In many ways, this had been the ‘Secret War’; Oman was closed to foreign media men and scant press coverage in the West avoided imponderable embarrassments. Hence it is usually forgotten that this is the only time a sovereign state – with a little help from its friends – vanquished a full-blown Communist insurgency in the field.

Ironically, the postwar threat against Oman security became more acute. To the possibility of resurgency was added the worse danger of a Soviet-backed armoured invasion form PDR Yemen. In the air the intrusion of Soviet surveillance aircraft had to be dealt with.

To counter the threat of insurgency, RAFO supported the Sultan's Land Forces (SOLF) garrison presence in the southern region and also made possible the progress of civil development – construction of roads, schools, hospitals and industrial installations. New fixed-wing aircraft (Skyvan and Defender) and Helicopter squadrons (AB 205, AB 206, AB 214 and AB 212) were formed and deployed in the south (Salalah) and the north (Seeb), providing heavy lift, troop transport, recce, medevac, and other support. Later (1981-83) 3 Lockheed C-130 aircraft were added at Seeb to become the main tactical transport squadron, best combining military and civil roles in airborne assault, paradrop, ambulance and re-supply as well as transport of passengers and freight.

The civil role in economic and social development is also, of course, a vital part of encouraging popular support and prosperity. Throughout the country, RAFO tactical transport aircraft of all types provided heavy lift for contractors’ equipment and materials, earth moving vehicles in C130s and flying doctors in Jetranger helicopters. All Omani settlements continue to benefit from RAFO civil air power. In the passenger role, by 1976 the Viscounts had been replaced by 3 BAC 1-11 airliners, providing free scheduled passenger services as a nationwide domestic airline as well as sustaining a worldwide airmobile capability. In fact the workload of all 6 transport squadrons throughout the 1980s was well over 60% dedicated to civil aid tasks.

To the threat of proxy conventional warfare from the south, RAFO mounts a deterrent response. The RAFO deterrent force in the southern sector is embodied in the forward strike/air defence base of Thumrait. Before the end of the Dhofar war, this former oil depot began to be fortified as the guarantor of Omani airspace in the south of the country. At first, Hunter FG9 aircraft constituted a deterrent force with ground attack and anti-armour capability as well as potential for interception of hostile aircraft. In 1977-78, the strike interception capability was enhanced by the addition of 12 new Jaguar aircraft raised as 8 Squadron. Then, late in 1978, the air defence role was augmented at low level by raising 10 (Rapier) Squadron – an extension of the capability already mounted at the new northern HQ base at SOAF Seeb with 12 Rapier Squadron and a Rapier SAM training unit. Over the years, SOAF Thumrait was consistently hardened and exercised alongside other SOAF and allied formations and, on a nationwide and regional scale, continues to be so. Ancillary roles include aerial intelligence and photo recce – combined with aerial photography for civil development – but the paramount requirement is always to intercept foreign probe aircraft or any other infringes of Omani airspace.

Today this role is still the main air defence requirement and has long been extended to cover the entire country and its territorial waters, to counter aggression from any quarter. All these developments were part of the Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) begun by British Aerospace as long ago as 1974. Although much improved in the 1980s, the IADS was complete to its original specification by 1978; existing airfields were extended and linked by a communication system under central control; an early warning radar control and reporting network was established, with aircraft for ground attack, interdiction, close air support and counter-air, as well as surface-to-air defence missiles, all in position and capable of deployment throughout the country. The development of the IADS is the central thrust which has transformed RAFO into a modern air force of regional significance and strategic potential.

By 1980, this modernisation was well advanced. The general configuration remains similar today, greatly expanded and enhanced throughout the decade of the 1980s. Thumrait, with 6 Squadron Hunters and 8 Squadron Jaguars, was the sharp end. Salalah, taken over from the RAF, became the southern logistic base supporting the SAF presence with 3 Squadron (Skyvan and Defender) and 5 Squadron (helicopters). In the north, Seeb mounted the major transport effort with 4 Squadron BAC 1-11, 16 Squadron C-130, 14 Squadron Helicopters and 2 Squadron Skyvan – the latter 2 forming detachments to the Musandam Peninsula enclave base at Khasab. Masirah, the island base off the east coast, also in March 1977 inherited from the RAF, received 1 Strikemaster Squadron from Salalah in its new flying training role. Rapier SAM squadrons were added to all key bases.

The ‘Carter Doctrine’ (US Presidential Directive No.18: August 1977) proclaimed Gulf Oil as a central issue of global strategy. The Shia Imam revolution (1978), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979) and the Iran-Iraq War (1981-88) – answered by the Oman/USA Access Agreement (1980) and the inauguration of the Gulf Co-operation Council (1982) – faces Oman with a geopolitical responsibility in the cause of regional security. As sentinel of the Gulf, Oman now accepts a multiple challenge in diplomacy as well as defence.

Briefly, since the beginning of the decade, there have developed better technology, improved weaponry and more aeroplanes. The IADS have been continuously enhanced. Several ground-based radars have been commissioned or upgraded since 1982. Apart from a new control and reporting centre (CRC), existing CRCs and sector Operations Centres at mainstay airfields have been improved. New radars include Martello 5713 long-range 3D radars and their associated MACE display and data-handling systems. In 1983, another squadron of 12 Jaguar jets (20 Squadron) was raised at Masirah. The Jaguar squadrons were later retrofitted with the FIN 1064 inertial navigation system to improve navigation, weapon delivery and mission management. The two Rapier low-level SAM squadrons have been equipped with Blindfire radars.

Since 1981, there has been a rolling programme to harden and upgrade all 4 key air defence airfields, including the construction of hardened aircraft shelters (HAS), the lengthening and strengthening of runways, and the laying down of extensive support facilities, ordnance depots and fuel dumps. Significantly, it is the northern bases, Seeb, Masirah and Khasab, which have most benefited from the recent projects. Seeb is the main transport and logistic base, collocated with the international airport. Masirah projects wide-ranging air defence and strike/interdiction. Both mount high-profile airborne surveillance over land and ocean approaches. Khasab, tucked away on the Musandam Peninsula enclave territory, exercises total radar control over the Straights of Hormuz.

Alongside the many other stresses and strains of modernisation, continued RAFO expansion faces fundamental problems. Up to now the answer has been to force growth through training and to invest in quality equipment and manpower to ensure satisfactory recruitment.

After such a sustained period of expansion, consolidation is the keynote of the near future. RAFO strikes a functional balance between training and operations. Airman training takes place at the Air Force Technical College (AFTC) at RAFO Seeb and then ‘out in the field’ on stations and officer training at the Sultan Qaboos Air Academy (SQAA) RAFO Ghalla. Training in all air forces branches and trades takes place in Oman and later often abroad in the West and in parts of the Arab world. Increasingly, training will take place ‘in-country’.

The AFTC claims the most thorough approach to air force trade training in the region. The SQAA maintains standards of airmanship and flying skill envied by Gulf neighbours. The performance of RAFO trainees in a variety of advanced training schemes abroad – RAF Halton, Cosford and Locking, as well as RAFC Cranwell for example – well testifies the effectiveness of both RAFO training institutions.

From the onset it was intended that RAFO should be run entirely by Omani Nationals. A successful programme of Omanization has been well advanced and gains increasing momentum. Senior Omani officers assume all key command appointments. RAFO personnel – mechanics, operations, air traffic and fighter control assistants, suppliers and other key tradesmen – take their places in hangars, control towers, operations centres, offices and workshops. Omani officers fly the aircraft and manage the ground installations.

In large-scale war games, RAFO exercises regularly with US Naval forces in the region and with rapid deployment forces from US Centcom. In late 1986, RAFO played a leading part in the Saif Seria (Swift Sword) exercise with British quick reaction forces. RAFO Headquarters is generously decorated with trophies and plaques from the commanders of friendly forces – tributes to the quality of the RAFO contribution.

RAFO’s investment in quality lends it the versatility to meet a wide range of contingencies. This policy is best seen in Oman's order for the BAe Hawk 200 and 100 series aircraft. The Hawk is due to replace the Hunter in late 1993. This acquisition will be the most significant development of recent years.

Thus, in 30 years, RAFO grew up with the country, both a symbol and a source of National success. As part of the present mainstay of national defence, or as the future leading edge of regional allied deterrence, RAFO faces the future with confidence.

Ok, you can wake up now:)

You may just gleam form this, if you paid attention at the back, that the middle east is not as unstable as trash media or war mongering spin quacks would have us believe.

In my own experiance, its a wonderful place, with diverse culture and the some of the most welcoming and freindly people on this planet.

You reap what you sow, some of my best years have been spent in these " troubled" countries.

Maybe the USA should get the hell out and stop causing tension in this region. I am sure the world would less "troubled" and better place if they did.

I love the American people, please stop voting such losers into power, and get back to space exploration!

Guest

4th Dec 2009, 05:20am

QUOTE

Israel a democracy? Israel is and always has been a 'Religous State' just as much as some Muslim States are.

Israel is, and has been since its establishment in 1948, a parliamentary democracy.